Screw that, the price is simply way to high for what you are getting. This isn't C2Q all over again were we didn't have any quad cores prior to their release. And the inclusion of HT is not worth the premium when they haven't invested enough (if any at all) getting it supported in the games and programs we use every day! They need to knock that chip of their shoulders and bring the price down to a level that people are comfortable paying.

I think this is alright... not GREAT or anything but still... I mean, the 2.66 version SHOULD perform close to i7 920 right? and the new socket motherboards are probably a 100$ cheaper compared to x58 mobos... so you save 100$ on CPU and 100$ on mobo... Then another 20-30$ on ram... for a comp that'll perform almost the same as an i7 system... a current cpu+mobo+ram i7 is about 550$, so if this is like 350~400$, it would be awsoeme no? It would be about the price of a E8500 system...

I think this is an ALRIGHT move from intel.. not great by any means because I doubt the mobos will be THAT cheap...

......
and will lga 1156 or what it was have possibility for westmere, but whats the extra pins on Core 7 for ? jeez.

......

That makes a 300 mhz extra and x58 the deal with core 7 then ?. looks odd to me.

i'd stick with one socket, and give user possibility to upgrade, and use cheap mobo's.

Click to expand...

A Core7 IS the Ferrari of CPUs, A Core5 is a BMW.
A X58=24GB of RAM, AND the home for the fastest CPU, 965/975 Extreem, that will OC out the BOX to 4GZ with about three settings and on air. Nothing will be faster for awhile.If you want a Ferrari you got to pay, you want a nice fast Mustang get a AMD.

Screw that, the price is simply way to high for what you are getting. This isn't C2Q all over again were we didn't have any quad cores prior to their release. And the inclusion of HT is not worth the premium when they haven't invested enough (if any at all) getting it supported in the games and programs we use every day! They need to knock that chip of their shoulders and bring the price down to a level that people are comfortable paying.

Click to expand...

That's mean we don't really need to upgrade AT ALL. Because the current mainstream cpu already good enough for gaming.
The hardwares maker do their best for performance, the programmers are the one who need to get their games/programs multi-threaded.
Heck, you don't even need a quad-core for gaming .

That's mean we don't really need to upgrade AT ALL. Because the current mainstream cpu already good enough for gaming.
The hardwares maker do their best for performance, the programmers are the one who need to get their games/programs multi-threaded.
Heck, you don't even need a quad-core for gaming .

Click to expand...

That is why it's up to Intel and Intel alone to get HT up and running in the programs and games we use daily as a justifiable reason why we should consider such a CPU to begin with (no, not at a premium either). If developers are content as a whole not using it (as they did with Pentium era...which is why AMD cpus were so popular because they had more arch muscle) then it's Intels job to promote their own product, not the developers.

True you don't need a quad core to play games no news there but neither is the need for throwing more threads into games and applications that inherently can't benefit from it. C2D and C2Q were brilliant ideas when they excluded HT because they clearly showed no need for it in the games and applications we continue to use.

That is why it's up to Intel and Intel alone to get HT up and running in the programs and games we use daily as a justifiable reason why we should consider such a CPU to begin with (no, not at a premium either). If developers are content as a whole not using it (as they did with Pentium era...which is why AMD cpus were so popular because they had more arch muscle) then it's Intels job to promote their own product, not the developers.

True you don't need a quad core to play games no news there but neither is the need for throwing more threads into games and applications that inherently can't benefit from it. C2D and C2Q were brilliant ideas when they excluded HT because they clearly showed no need for it in the games and applications we continue to use.

Click to expand...

HT isn't really needed in many apps. So turn it off. It gives a huge boost in some apps. So turn it on. I fail to see how it is a negative. Triple channel doesn't do much, should they just abandon that? Quad core doesn't always do much above dual, why make quad cores? Because in some instance they do provide a nice boost, giving you the best in all apps. If your not doing mulit-threaded apps, then don't buy a multi-threaded processor. Simple as that. No reason to tell a company not to put a useful feature on it's procs though.

HT isn't really needed in many apps. So turn it off. It gives a huge boost in some apps. So turn it on. I fail to see how it is a negative. Triple channel doesn't do much, should they just abandon that? Quad core doesn't always do much above dual, why make quad cores? Because in some instance they do provide a nice boost, giving you the best in all apps. If your not doing mulit-threaded apps, then don't buy a multi-threaded processor. Simple as that.

Who said to interpret my post as "HT is negative" . Clearly suggesting that Intel should get more involved with developers so HT can be found in more applications and games doesn't mean that "HT is negative".

Besides, why buy a i7 or i5 and have to constantly turn HT on or off based on what you are trying to run? That in itself is a negative .

As far as triple channel memory goes, if it doesn't offer any benefit why should the average enthusiast consider it? You said it yourself, triple channel memory doesn't offer much. So perhaps you should ask yourself why should folk invest in it to begin with.

Just because you can fine an example or 2 doesn't mean that the masses should follow suit in marching order at the premium asked for. So to answer your question, everyone is entitled to not only their own opinion when it comes to purchases like this but, they are also entitled to refrain from said purchases if there is no real benefit owning it.

And in this example, i5 doesn't offer any real benefit to existing CPU line up for the price they are asking for.

You were assuming your own uses were universal by saying they shouldn't have included HT on the i5. I said if you don't need it don't buy it simple as that. It is cheaper than i7 for similar performance, that's the exciting part. Level of excitement will of course vary.

You were assuming your own uses were universal by saying they shouldn't have included HT on the i5. I said if you don't need it don't buy it simple as that. It is cheaper than i7 for similar performance, that's the exciting part. Level of excitement will of course vary.

Click to expand...

No, I didn't say that they shouldn't include HT on i5. I said;

Screw that, the price is simply way to high for what you are getting. This isn't C2Q all over again were we didn't have any quad cores prior to their release. And the inclusion of HT is not worth the premium when they haven't invested enough (if any at all) getting it supported in the games and programs we use every day!...

Click to expand...

Which is in stark contrast to me making assumptions based on my own uses were universal by saying that HT should be included in i5.

Then I said;

That is why it's up to Intel and Intel alone to get HT up and running in the programs and games we use daily as a justifiable reason why we should consider such a CPU to begin with (no, not at a premium either)...

Click to expand...

followed by;

Who said to interpret my post as "HT is negative" . Clearly suggesting that Intel should get more involved with developers so HT can be found in more applications and games doesn't mean that "HT is negative"...

Click to expand...

Which is the summary of my posts in this thread. None of which indicates what you stated.

If the cheapest i5 will be cost about 200$ then AMD would finally rebuild thei possition: did you notice that more and more Market PC's had an AMD cpu? Wait, the whole platform is build on AMD! AMD CPU, AMD Chipset mobo and... oh, look! An AMD GPU inside! May intel made fastest CPU, but is not siutable for most users. By the price of i7 CPU and mobo You may buy an AMD Phenom II + mobo on 780/790 + HD4830 + 2GB RAM = almost funcionall PC for price of two parts... If intel don't cut their prices before 3Q, then AMD would hawe a 40% of CPU sales before christmas ;P

That is why it's up to Intel and Intel alone to get HT up and running in the programs and games we use daily as a justifiable reason why we should consider such a CPU to begin with (no, not at a premium either). If developers are content as a whole not using it (as they did with Pentium era...which is why AMD cpus were so popular because they had more arch muscle) then it's Intels job to promote their own product, not the developers.

True you don't need a quad core to play games no news there but neither is the need for throwing more threads into games and applications that inherently can't benefit from it. C2D and C2Q were brilliant ideas when they excluded HT because they clearly showed no need for it in the games and applications we continue to use.

Click to expand...

Lol, you made it sound like the way Intel cpu work is "ENTIRELY" different from AMD.

HT is not a new "feature" (Quad-cores and multi-threads are similar) , It's something that simple make the cpu more effective. Something like increasing cpu clock.
To make a game supports many threads is a hard thing to do. But, isn't that on the programming side? The cpu read the languages, it's not WRITING it.

It's true that many games don't require a quad-core cpu, but why are we overclocking them anyway? Because it runs not good enough at default clock!
And that's mean we don't really need to OC them if all games and programs are multi-threaded.

In FPS games, the game only process the things you see in front and around you in a certain radius , so, the field that you see is really small, but it's different in RTS games, or games like Empire Total War.

Empire Total War is a new game, it's quite cpu intensive, because of all the unit on the battle field, big map too. The game only run on 1 thread out of 8, and that's thread always at 100%, and I'm running my CPU at 3.8GHz! The lag/hiccup is annoying.

To make a game supports many threads is a hard thing to do. But, isn't that on the programming side? The cpu read the languages, it's not WRITING it.

Click to expand...

LOL, wut? My point was that if you want to see more implementation of HT in games and applications (instead of having to turn it on for certain apps then turn it off) it is Intel's responsibility to reach out to those developers so that it's used more.

It's true that many games don't require a quad-core cpu, but why are we overclocking them anyway? Because it runs not good enough at default clock!

And that's mean we don't really need to OC them if all games and programs are multi-threaded.

Click to expand...

Even if they did use HT overclocking your CPU for CPU dependent games (in particular) would still provide better frame rates (depending on the circumstances). The very thing I've seen in applications that use HT now.

In FPS games, the game only process the things you see in front and around you in a certain radius , so, the field that you see is really small, but it's different in RTS games, or games like Empire Total War.

Empire Total War is a new game, it's quite cpu intensive, because of all the unit on the battle field, big map too. The game only run on 1 thread out of 8, and that's thread always at 100%, and I'm running my CPU at 3.8GHz! The lag/hiccup is annoying.

Click to expand...

That just means (if ture) that game needs to be better optimize to run on dual/quad core cpus not HT in particular. However, another example is using a 64-bit OS with 8 gigs of ram just to run TF2. This shows the other side of the spectrum.

I am not so sure that their (Intels) pricing strategy is that far off, not suggesting personally that I mind paying this much but the mid i5 appears to be priced about the same as the 955, and even thought at stock it has less Mhz, i would expect it to at least match and at times better a 955 in most things, of course we wont know that for sure until i5 arrives. it dont look such a good deal to me however, not because of whats on offer from AMD but because of whats on offer from Intel!

I am not so sure that their (Intels) pricing strategy is that far off, not suggesting personally that I mind paying this much but the mid i5 appears to be priced about the same as the 955, and even thought at stock it has less Mhz, i would expect it to at least match and at times better a 955 in most things, of course we wont know that for sure until i5 arrives. it dont look such a good deal to me however, not because of whats on offer from AMD but because of whats on offer from Intel!

Click to expand...

From what I've been told the 2.66 GHz version does not offer HT. But I'll wait for official confirmation.

I am not so sure that their (Intels) pricing strategy is that far off, not suggesting personally that I mind paying this much but the mid i5 appears to be priced about the same as the 955, and even thought at stock it has less Mhz, i would expect it to at least match and at times better a 955 in most things, of course we wont know that for sure until i5 arrives. it dont look such a good deal to me however, not because of whats on offer from AMD but because of whats on offer from Intel!

Click to expand...

i5 should be better out the box than 955 ... thereby its higher calling price

If you have a recent system and can wait a little, that is a good choice. Sandy Bridge is going to be a revolutionary chip, mark my words. I've seen leaked slides that talk about function-specific parts of the core which can handle encryption, encoding, etc. all by themselves. So if you're only encoding music/video files, only a specific part of the chip wakes up and becomes active, introducing tremendous power savings. I personally can't wait for Sandy Bridge and beyond...

A Core7 IS the Ferrari of CPUs, A Core5 is a BMW.
A X58=24GB of RAM, AND the home for the fastest CPU, 965/975 Extreem, that will OC out the BOX to 4GZ with about three settings and on air. Nothing will be faster for awhile.If you want a Ferrari you got to pay, you want a nice fast Mustang get a AMD.